I've read several predictions for the House elections in 2010 and they seem to ignore the fact that the Republicans are making asses of themselves and alienating the woman/black/hispanic/miscellaneous vote.

Logged

"As a North Carolinian born & bred, I think this makes perfect sense. If you get arrested, a cop should have every right to go through your phone. If you are doing something illegal and get caught, then sucks to be you." - Risa in the comments section for an article about cellphones on Forbes.com, not that I agree with her.

And let's not forget that they alienated some Hispanics by opposing Sotomayor.

Logged

"As a North Carolinian born & bred, I think this makes perfect sense. If you get arrested, a cop should have every right to go through your phone. If you are doing something illegal and get caught, then sucks to be you." - Risa in the comments section for an article about cellphones on Forbes.com, not that I agree with her.

I've read several predictions for the House elections in 2010 and they seem to ignore the fact that the Republicans are making asses of themselves and alienating the woman/black/hispanic/miscellaneous vote.

I've read several predictions for the House elections in 2010 and they seem to ignore the fact that the Republicans are making asses of themselves and alienating the woman/black/hispanic/miscellaneous vote.

Do you truly mean to imply that the Republicans did anything other than a mediocre job with any of those groups in 2008?

Logged

Quote from: Ignatius of Antioch

He that possesses the word of Jesus, is truly able to bear his very silence. — Epistle to the Ephesians 3:21a

I've read several predictions for the House elections in 2010 and they seem to ignore the fact that the Republicans are making asses of themselves and alienating the woman/black/hispanic/miscellaneous vote.

First, if Sotomayor turns out to be a racist or have radical views on affirmative action and such (not saying she does) this will only hurt Obama's, and by extension, the Democrats' credibility with all voters, including Hispanics. Women will have leaned Democrat for quite some time, and not just because of abortion. Blacks are the same way.

I really think Republicans will make inroads with Hispanics, particularly because they've toned down the anti-immigrant rhetoric significantly.

I've read several predictions for the House elections in 2010 and they seem to ignore the fact that the Republicans are making asses of themselves and alienating the woman/black/hispanic/miscellaneous vote.

The only predictions I have seen are the GOP gaining 5 to 10 seats from some of the Highly GOP territory they lost like ID-01, CO-04, MS-01, VA-05, NM seat held by Pearce(Hispanics would be important here.) and maybe 1 or 2 suprises like ME-01. I see the Republicans desparately trying to once again become the limited Gov't, less Spending, fiscally responsible party while at the same time trying to hold down the Social Conservatives and avoid pissing them off. Is it going to happen over night, no. Is the GOP just walking up to Obama and giving him a collective hug going to put the GOP back in control of congress tomorrow, either, no. For our purposes it is necessary to shake off the image of big Gov't that our party has adopted since 1999. While it also necessary to keep the social Cons in the party as well. So there will definately have to be period of easiness right now and its good long term for our party.

I've read several predictions for the House elections in 2010 and they seem to ignore the fact that the Republicans are making asses of themselves and alienating the woman/black/hispanic/miscellaneous vote.

The only predictions I have seen are the GOP gaining 5 to 10 seats from some of the Highly GOP territory they lost like ID-01, CO-04, MS-01, VA-05, NM seat held by Pearce(Hispanics would be important here.) and maybe 1 or 2 suprises like ME-01. I see the Republicans desparately trying to once again become the limited Gov't, less Spending, fiscally responsible party while at the same time trying to hold down the Social Conservatives and avoid pissing them off. Is it going to happen over night, no. Is the GOP just walking up to Obama and giving him a collective hug going to put the GOP back in control of congress tomorrow, either, no. For our purposes it is necessary to shake off the image of big Gov't that our party has adopted since 1999. While it also necessary to keep the social Cons in the party as well. So there will definately have to be period of easiness right now and its good long term for our party.

I think you'd be much better off dumping the social conservatives and adopting a libertarian-lite platform. That's would be a true return to the GOP's roots in limited government. The social conservatives are dead weight. We've reached the tipping point on gay rights, stem cell technology has nearly reached the point where embryos aren't really necessary, and Democrats have mostly taken a "big tent" approach to guns and abortion. The "three G" platform has been neutralized. There are, of course, areas of the country where this strategy will still resonate but it will never work at the national level.

Right on, Arizonan! You ought to be a political analyst. I look forward to hearing more of your insights on this forum. Republicans are screwing themselves with the Sotomayor nomination, which was truly a master stroke by Obama. I was speaking with one Mexican woman who was so furious about opposition to Sotomayor that she told me she would never vote Republican again. She told me she had no idea why a wise Latina woman was being opposed and rightfully concluded that the Republican Party was the party of bigotry and oppression. Don't forget that women too will see opposition to Sotomayor as sexist, and will leave the party in droves.

Right on, Arizonan! You ought to be a political analyst. I look forward to hearing more of your insights on this forum. Republicans are screwing themselves with the Sotomayor nomination, which was truly a master stroke by Obama. I was speaking with one Mexican woman who was so furious about opposition to Sotomayor that she told me she would never vote Republican again. She told me she had no idea why a wise Latina woman was being opposed and rightfully concluded that the Republican Party was the party of bigotry and oppression. Don't forget that women too will see opposition to Sotomayor as sexist, and will leave the party in droves.

It is a very dangerous situation when you can appoint almost anybody and scare the opposition into retreat b/c they are a women, minority, or both. Stupid identity politics.

I think Republicans should come together and vote for Sotomayor. She seems to be decent, but putting my Republican hat on...1. If all vote for her, though her being on Supreme Court would help Obama in 2012, in the long run, it won't kill Republicans. If you vote against her, they'll accuse Republicans of being racist.2. If Sotomayor turns out to be a pig-headed racist like some thing, it will really hurt Obama in 2012.

I agree. If I were a Republican senator, I would bite the bullet for Sotomayor this time for several reasons:1. It's a liberal seat, so there is no way to replace that seat with any other ideology. 2. The Dems have their 60 seats, so filibustering can't/won't happen3. The common perception of the Republicans being a racist party, even though that is not the case.

Some days, I wish I was running the Republican party, but then again, what do I know, I'm a college student.

I think you'd be much better off dumping the social conservatives and adopting a libertarian-lite platform. That's would be a true return to the GOP's roots in limited government. The social conservatives are dead weight.

The social conservatives are a huge number of Americans who provide essential manpower for the Republican Party and whose views have to be represented somewhere. They can't and shouldn't be dumped, any more than the Democrats should have "dumped" pro-choicers and gays in 2004 when that was the common diagnosis for their problems. Republicans need to find a way to keep the social conservatives in the tent while somehow appealing to enough others and that is out of their hands. It's up to social conservatives to accept this role and up to the issues and Democrats to create an opening for Republicans where there is none now.

A libertarian platform for Republicans is appealing to people on the Internet more than the general public. No offense. It's like "let's abolish marriage for all couples, leaving it to the churches and giving civil unions to everyone." It's logically appealing but it's a total loser in actual elections.

I think you'd be much better off dumping the social conservatives and adopting a libertarian-lite platform. That's would be a true return to the GOP's roots in limited government. The social conservatives are dead weight.

The social conservatives are a huge number of Americans who provide essential manpower for the Republican Party and whose views have to be represented somewhere. They can't and shouldn't be dumped, any more than the Democrats should have "dumped" pro-choicers and gays in 2004 when that was the common diagnosis for their problems. Republicans need to find a way to keep the social conservatives in the tent while somehow appealing to enough others and that is out of their hands. It's up to social conservatives to accept this role and up to the issues and Democrats to create an opening for Republicans where there is none now.

A libertarian platform for Republicans is appealing to people on the Internet more than the general public. No offense. It's like "let's abolish marriage for all couples, leaving it to the churches and giving civil unions to everyone." It's logically appealing but it's a total loser in actual elections.

To dump the Social Conservatives would be poltical suicide. There is no quick fix to this problem. The fix is to slowly integrate social conservativism into a much more popular and palatable platform(and no my libertarian friends, that does not mean going populist, we have already gone that route and failed).

And let's not forget about the population growth of the Hispanics and how the youth of this country tend to be liberal.

Logged

"As a North Carolinian born & bred, I think this makes perfect sense. If you get arrested, a cop should have every right to go through your phone. If you are doing something illegal and get caught, then sucks to be you." - Risa in the comments section for an article about cellphones on Forbes.com, not that I agree with her.

I've read several predictions for the House elections in 2010 and they seem to ignore the fact that the Republicans are making asses of themselves and alienating the woman/black/hispanic/miscellaneous vote.

And let's not forget about the population growth of the Hispanics and how the youth of this country tend to be liberal.

The Republican party is not going to gain anything in Hispanic votes if we show the white feature and support Amnesty. The Dems can always out do us on racial grievence so we shouldn't go that route. Or best option is to secure the 33% to 40% of Hispanics who are having there wages depressed by illegal immigrants. This same strategy will win us over the 25% of blacks that conservative, and do wonders among poor working class whites. It will also disorganise and decrease the power of unions, which do everything in there power to convince there members that something else is to blame for there low wages. Since when is it racist to actually stand up American workers. Once we enact enforcement only and the numbers of illegals goes down through attrition and wages for farm workers and other manual labor goes up 25% or more we won't have to worry about winning Hispanics cause we will get 45% to 50% of them in every election.

It is a very dangerous situation when you can appoint almost anybody and scare the opposition into retreat b/c they are a women, minority, or both. Stupid identity politics.

I remember a few years ago when Republicans were beating the drum and calling Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, and Dick Durbin "anti-Catholic" for opposing some of Bush's judges who were Catholic.

Is that suppose to make it right somehow.

I haven't seen people being called anti-Latino for opposing Sotomayor other than people like Tancredo and Buchanan who seem to genuinely have a problem with her being Latina. The fact is, Republicans can object to her because they don't agree with her views, but otherwise she is unquestionably qualified for the job. When people try to claim she's unqualified because she is Latina and therefore an affirmative action pick, they're essentially saying any minority nominated by a Democrat is going to be unqualified. She's not a Latina Harriet Miers. Republicans disagree with her, but their views lost the election, and so Souter is replaced by a liberal who is a minority on the Court in more ways than one.

I guess I'm saying there's a limit to what Republicans should expect to accomplish with their opposition, just as there was a limit to what Democrats could expect to accomplish from opposing John Roberts. It's not as if her being a woman or a Latina is constraining fair criticism. It's that Republicans, or any legislative minority, does not have a right to win every political battle they wade into.

It is a very dangerous situation when you can appoint almost anybody and scare the opposition into retreat b/c they are a women, minority, or both. Stupid identity politics.

I remember a few years ago when Republicans were beating the drum and calling Patrick Leahy, Ted Kennedy, and Dick Durbin "anti-Catholic" for opposing some of Bush's judges who were Catholic.

Is that suppose to make it right somehow.

I haven't seen people being called anti-Latino for opposing Sotomayor other than people like Tancredo and Buchanan who seem to genuinely have a problem with her being Latina. The fact is, Republicans can object to her because they don't agree with her views, but otherwise she is unquestionably qualified for the job. When people try to claim she's unqualified because she is Latina and therefore an affirmative action pick, they're essentially saying any minority nominated by a Democrat is going to be unqualified. She's not a Latina Harriet Miers. Republicans disagree with her, but their views lost the election, and so Souter is replaced by a liberal who is a minority on the Court in more ways than one.

I guess I'm saying there's a limit to what Republicans should expect to accomplish with their opposition, just as there was a limit to what Democrats could expect to accomplish from opposing John Roberts. It's not as if her being a woman or a Latina is constraining fair criticism. It's that Republicans, or any legislative minority, does not have a right to win every political battle they wade into.

Yes but Republicans who oppose Sotomeyer should not all be labeled as racist for doing. I actually am undecided on whether she should be confirmed, I just find it insane that the opposition should fear opposing a nominee cause of the potential to be called racist or sexist. Neither party should have a blank check in terms of power.

And let's not forget about the population growth of the Hispanics and how the youth of this country tend to be liberal.

The growth of Hispanics could certainly be an issue for the GOP if they piss them off, but how is youth tending to be liberal an issue? The youth have always tended to be more liberal. As people get older and get a job and start a family and actually live in the real world most of them become less idealistic and more practical. All of those taxes you're paying suddenly aren't so inviting when you've got bills to pay and kids to feed.

The election predictions also ignore the fact that the GOP is splintering.

Many Republicans are still opposing Sotomayor even though George H.W. Bush and Laura Bush gave the thumbs up for Sotomayor.

Logged

"As a North Carolinian born & bred, I think this makes perfect sense. If you get arrested, a cop should have every right to go through your phone. If you are doing something illegal and get caught, then sucks to be you." - Risa in the comments section for an article about cellphones on Forbes.com, not that I agree with her.

I've read several predictions for the House elections in 2010 and they seem to ignore the fact that the Republicans are making asses of themselves and alienating the woman/black/hispanic/miscellaneous vote.

The only predictions I have seen are the GOP gaining 5 to 10 seats from some of the Highly GOP territory they lost like ID-01, CO-04, MS-01, VA-05, NM seat held by Pearce(Hispanics would be important here.) and maybe 1 or 2 suprises like ME-01.

MS-01, NM-02 are actually both more than a little unlikely unless we get something of a wave rebound (in which case both are goners). CO-4 and VA-5 depend on how their new Reps settle in and who challenges them, but are definitely not to be ruled out at any point unless we're past the primary and the opposition is 3rd tier. There are some more seats of similar calibre (AL-02 anyone?) Walt Minnick is on borrowed time and his best bet would probably be a rematch against Sali... which is certainly not off the cards.

I'd look closer at recently lost suburban seats, frankly. Rural seats have a way of sticking with Representatives they like.

Logged

If I'm shown as having been active here recently it's either because I've been using the gallery, because I've been using the search engine looking up something from way back, or because I've been reading the most excellent UK by-elections thread again.

The election predictions also ignore the fact that the GOP is splintering.

Many Republicans are still opposing Sotomayor even though George H.W. Bush and Laura Bush gave the thumbs up for Sotomayor.

Indeed, Arizonan, the GOP is starting to splinter around the Sotomayor nomination. Never has there been such an explosive issue for the Republican Party. This could lead not only to an extended stay in the electoral wilderness, but possibly the collapse of the Republican Party. Sotomayor's nomination is to the Republican Party what slavery was for the Whigs.

I've read several predictions for the House elections in 2010 and they seem to ignore the fact that the Republicans are making asses of themselves and alienating the woman/black/hispanic/miscellaneous vote.

The only predictions I have seen are the GOP gaining 5 to 10 seats from some of the Highly GOP territory they lost like ID-01, CO-04, MS-01, VA-05, NM seat held by Pearce(Hispanics would be important here.) and maybe 1 or 2 suprises like ME-01.

MS-01, NM-02 are actually both more than a little unlikely unless we get something of a wave rebound (in which case both are goners). CO-4 and VA-5 depend on how their new Reps settle in and who challenges them, but are definitely not to be ruled out at any point unless we're past the primary and the opposition is 3rd tier. There are some more seats of similar calibre (AL-02 anyone?) Walt Minnick is on borrowed time and his best bet would probably be a rematch against Sali... which is certainly not off the cards.

I'd look closer at recently lost suburban seats, frankly. Rural seats have a way of sticking with Representatives they like.

I couldn't remember which Alabama seat we lost so I put MS-01 up there instead. Its still highly red territory and and we have yet to try someone different. We need to stop running the same guy in the general if he loses in the special, that killed us there. I was just trying to geive some examples of the types of seats we likely regain and how few they are. It seems that the originator of this thread is finding predictions of us regaining the House or something, which is quite impossible till at least 2014 and thats only if we win back at least 25 seats in 2010 and lose only a hanfull in 2012, and those are the best case scenario estimates of course.

I've read several predictions for the House elections in 2010 and they seem to ignore the fact that the Republicans are making asses of themselves and alienating the woman/black/hispanic/miscellaneous vote.

The only predictions I have seen are the GOP gaining 5 to 10 seats from some of the Highly GOP territory they lost like ID-01, CO-04, MS-01, VA-05, NM seat held by Pearce(Hispanics would be important here.) and maybe 1 or 2 suprises like ME-01.

MS-01, NM-02 are actually both more than a little unlikely unless we get something of a wave rebound (in which case both are goners). CO-4 and VA-5 depend on how their new Reps settle in and who challenges them, but are definitely not to be ruled out at any point unless we're past the primary and the opposition is 3rd tier. There are some more seats of similar calibre (AL-02 anyone?) Walt Minnick is on borrowed time and his best bet would probably be a rematch against Sali... which is certainly not off the cards.

I'd look closer at recently lost suburban seats, frankly. Rural seats have a way of sticking with Representatives they like.

I couldn't remember which Alabama seat we lost so I put MS-01 up there instead. Its still highly red territory and and we have yet to try someone different. We need to stop running the same guy in the general if he loses in the special, that killed us there. I was just trying to geive some examples of the types of seats we likely regain and how few they are. It seems that the originator of this thread is finding predictions of us regaining the House or something, which is quite impossible till at least 2014 and thats only if we win back at least 25 seats in 2010 and lose only a hanfull in 2012, and those are the best case scenario estimates of course.

I dont know about MS-01. Its not like Childers barely eked out a win there. He won the seat by a clean 10 point margin even as Obama was only getting 38% of the vote. Its not like AL-02 and VA-05 where the Dems only squeezed by with around 50%.